Why the Spelling "Micro$oft"? 12

[Mike555]

Ok, this is really bugging me. Why does everyone refer to Microsoft as Micro$oft? Is this just a trend? Or is it that posters electing to replace the S with $ are steering clear of any potential repercussions possibly caused by posts containing view points critical of the software giant?

Please explain this to me or just tell me that I'm overthinking this one.

--
Mike

 

[CajunCenturion]

I'm not sure who you are referring to as "all those companies", but a lot of the API's are documented and published. There are also those that are not. Whether or not it would be illegal to use API that are not documented is quite debatable, but I've not seen anything to indicate that it would be a license violation. The risk you take with the undocumented APIs is that MS can change them at will, and you really have no recourse against them. They did not document it, so you use it at your own risk.

My gripe is that they've changed the documented APIs with proper documentation and notification updates. I think that jsteph's claim is that MS did not publish on purpose, a number of APIs which contain some of the most efficient methods of performing a number of tasks. The result is that made it difficult to develop apps that could complete, on a performance basis, with many of the Windows Applications. I liken it to buying an SuperCharged engine for your car, but you can only gain the benefits of super-charging if it's a certain model of car. All of models only get standard performance from the engine.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[jsteph]

edfair,
<<...Would it be more correct to say that anybody could have figured out the hidden APIs had they taken the time and effort to trace them? >>

I can't see how or why. First, the p5 and higher processors have more and bigger registers than the pre-PC days, and reverse-engineering these large .dlls would be a waste of time, since, as was stated by CajunCenturion, MS could change them at will and then all the (probably thousands) of man-hours would be wasted and they'd need to start from scratch, send out patches to millions of customers, all the while MS engineers would be snickering and snorting with snot dribbling from their noses.

There is no question that this is what they've done and for the stated obvious reasons. Look at simple human psychology. Some men have been faced with a moral question and have killed for a few bucks. Other men have faced those questions, judged the reward against the crime and killed for millions--the risk/reward spread being much larger.

Now, take Bill Gates. His 'crime'--and note in these posts that it's not even known if it's actually a crime--was to create a crippled api set for his competition to use. The reward was billions and billions of dollars and world domination in the one of the most lucrative businesses ever. Basically little or no risk and the largest reward ever imagined.

Does anyone think he thought about that and said 'No, that would be unfair'? Please.
--Jim

 

[edfair]

Once MS started using the hidden APIs they were locked in until they created a patch. So I would suspect that the entry points were safe.
Bosses probably were screaming about program speed, programmers probably took the easiest way out. And after the fact told the powers to be the method they used.
I would doubt that BG even knew about it.

 

[jsteph]

Regardless of changing entry points, etc, the below example shows how the same code that probably exists in the Public API can also exist in the hidden api to thwart those who found the entry points:

Some possible pseudocode from a hidden API:

If (app != "excel.exe") || (app != "msword.exe")...etc{
    for (i=1;i<=2000000;i++)
           ;//no-op
}

...cynical, yes. But quite probable, again, look at human nature. Kill, rob, extort to get a few bucks, or do the few lines of code above to get billions. Hmmm.
--Jim

 

[Dimandja]

To be sure, not all undocumented API are meant to thwart the competition. Every OS has undocumentated entry points. There is a very good reason for this.

The documentated API is usually only an envelop that should not change for a relatively long time -- forever on some OS's. Whenever the hardware changes, for example, the undocumented API changes, for efficiency, but the envelop remains the same. This is good practice.

However, the manufacturer is in a good position to remain nimble in its coding practices because they control these changes very closely. Every manufacturer I know of prefers to use their undocumented APIs and code close to the metal.

The fact that M$ uses these undocumented -- prone to frequent changes -- APIs is industry wide well known sound practice. I see no malice in this.

 

[jsteph]

dimandja,
I'm not saying anything is wrong with using un-documented api's. My points are that they can be used to thwart competition. And my rhetorical question is 'What's stopping them?'--why wouldn't MS use these for malicious purposes? Because "It's wrong"? Human nature says that this answer is totally out of the question.

I've established that the Means, Motive, and Opportunity factors are so high they're off the scale.

So my questions to those who disagree that MS uses undocumented api's in a way to thwart competition (either by crippling the public ones or adding efficiency or functionality to their private ones) are:

1. What makes you think MS is not doing this?
2. What overriding force (legal, emotional, spiritual, whatever) would or could possibly prevent them from doing this?
--Jim

 

[sleipnir214]

Dimandja:
It is not true to say that every OS has undocumented entry points. One can't hide entry points in an open-source OS, for example.

And if there are undocumented entry points in the microkernel OSes, like QNX, they'd have to be well hidden. There aren't many places to hide things there.



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Dimandja]

sleipnir214 ,

Open source. Duh, it is open. I understand that. I am not talking about that.

 

[sleipnir214]

Dimandja:
I recommend that you change the password on your user handle. Someone used your handle to post a message that included the text "Every OS has undocumentated entry points."


I'm curious about your statement "but the envelop remains the same". The API is the envelope.



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Dimandja]

Spoiling for a fight, sleipnir? You can split hair as much as you want, I'll pass.

As for the envelop. I have designed many of them. Under the hood they not be what you expect. So, yes, most M$ API you know of are envelops. Under them there are one or more entry points you may not know about. To fight over this is laughable.

 

[sleipnir214]

The problem is that they change the behavior and existence of known entry points, without warning, at will.


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Dimandja]

We already established that. CajunCenturion and I talked about it at length. You must have missed these messages.

So called 'hidden APIs' are a common practical feature industry wide -- I'll reserve my M$ bashing when it is worth it.

 

[sleipnir214]

I'm not talking about "hidden APIs". I'm talking about willy-nilly changes to what little of the Win32 pseudo-API that Mi[&cent;]ro$oft has actually documented.



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Dimandja]

All right sleipnir, I'll hold your hand. The following was written already on this thread.

CC: First-rate software engineering would not allow one programming team to modify a global library function, such as an API. That is one of major culprits of a Microsoft upgrade which causes other applications to fail.

Me: To second CC, M$ patches rank up there with Attila the Hun. They'll destroy your applications without warning.

 

[sleipnir214]

Dimadja:
Good, I'll hold your hand, too.

The fact that M$ uses these undocumented -- prone to frequent changes -- APIs is industry wide well known sound practice.

This can only be a sound practice when the company recognizes that there is a difference between a documented API and a "hidden" API. Mi[&cent;]ro$oft, unfortunately has not even yet learned to differentiate between desktop apps and the OS.




Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Dimandja]

This can only be a sound practice when the company recognizes that there is a difference between a documented API and a "hidden" API. Mi¢ro$oft, unfortunately has not even yet learned to differentiate between desktop apps and the OS.

So, you know this for a fact? Not mere rumor? Or sheer malice?

If you bring up facts I'll be first to scream at them. This is speculation. Nothing more. How do you distinguish between a 'hidden' API and an 'raw' API as I described? What makes you think M$ is actively hiding these things? Any proof?

 

[sleipnir214]

As to the first part, I (and from your comments you) have seen Mi[&cent;]ro$oft software updates break applications. Sounds to me like the documented API was changed without notice to me.

As to the second part, Mi[&cent;]ro$oft has announced that there will be no more major updates to Internet Explorer, as that application will be made part of the operating system. (Actually, Mi[&cent;]ro$oft has claimed that since Windows 98, http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q174/2/65.asp&NoWebContent=1]IE has been part of the OS[/url].) The last time I checked, a web browser was a desktop application.

Again, to the second part, I need only look as far as comdlg32.dll. http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q161/2/86.asp&NoWebContent=1]Mi[&cent;]ro$oft states that this library provides part of the Win32 API[/url]. Yet Mi[&cent;]ro$oft desktop applications update that file when they install.


I have never stated that Mi[&cent;]ro$oft is actively hiding things. I have only stated that I think the company's software engineering is second-rate -- this neither presupposes nor requires additional motive.


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Dimandja]

And here I was thinking you disagreed with something I said. Sheesh...

 

[sleipnir214]

Dimandja:

Duh, it is open.
Or sheer malice?
Sheesh...

Have I offended you in some way?



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Dimandja]

Put it to rest, please...